4 ms·

"I was surprised on how wrongly focused the attempt is" I'd hope you would have added your 2 cents to our discussions since it would have been be really valuab

"I was surprised on how wrongly focused the attempt is" I'd hope you would have added your 2 cents to our discussions since it would have been be really valuable. And you still should because there seems to be two main road maps for IPM right now, if I understand the discussions correctly: - extending npm, adding a immutable dependencies (similar to EverythingStays) - extending gx to add npm-like functionality (re-invent npm in IPFS-land) I am gonna add an "issue" in our repo referring to your project, and hopefully, we could somehow merge so we don't implement the same thing twice. :D Make sense?

diggan 11y ago
Yeah, I was about to, but then I saw the owners of the project agree to some of the things I absolutely want to not touch at all. So my thinking is that our ways was different enough, that my feedback would not be valuable to you. Feel free to open the issue and I'll chime in with what I think. Then we'll see if we agree or not :)
- reimertz 11y ago
  For me, it never was about what I thought, but what the community thought and wanted. My goal was just to create an discussion. I am sad that the introduction didn't make that more obvious so you would have felt more invited to join the discussion. My bad. I think several people agree with you in our discussions, and the more I think about it myself, the more it make sense, short-term to extend npm and add immutable dependencies. I, personally, like the idea of gx, but that is a more of a long-term achievement, developing an open-sourced, fully decentralized , platform independent package manager. :) Here is the newly created issue if you want to shime in -> https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13 https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Yeah, I was about to, but then I saw the owners of the project agree to some of the things I absolutely want to not touch at all. Can you elaborate on which specific areas you're trying not to touch? In your previous comment, you mentioned "rewriting what already works" and "malicious packages and copyright infringement"; anything else?
  - diggan 11y ago
    Things that was raised in the ipmjs repository that I don't feel the a package manager should solve > Prevent worm-like vulnerabilities when adding dependencies > npm scripts, the good, the bad, and the dangerous > Namespace all the things! > Needs for frontend and backend package managers are different > Involve the FSF > Have you thought about malicious packages? > Have you thought about copyright infringement? > trademarking 'ipmjs' so we don't get kik'd These are all issues I want to avoid. Also, I don't want to write yet another package manager, I'm trying to extend NPM and still allow the centralized way that we currently use today, but allow a optional offline-first approach. Feel free to continue reading more about what I said in the ipmjs repository here: https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13 https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13

diggan 11y ago

Yeah, I was about to, but then I saw the owners of the project agree to some of the things I absolutely want to not touch at all. So my thinking is that our ways was different enough, that my feedback would not be valuable to you. Feel free to open the issue and I'll chime in with what I think. Then we'll see if we agree or not :)

reimertz 11y ago
For me, it never was about what I thought, but what the community thought and wanted. My goal was just to create an discussion. I am sad that the introduction didn't make that more obvious so you would have felt more invited to join the discussion. My bad. I think several people agree with you in our discussions, and the more I think about it myself, the more it make sense, short-term to extend npm and add immutable dependencies. I, personally, like the idea of gx, but that is a more of a long-term achievement, developing an open-sourced, fully decentralized , platform independent package manager. :) Here is the newly created issue if you want to shime in -> https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13 https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Yeah, I was about to, but then I saw the owners of the project agree to some of the things I absolutely want to not touch at all. Can you elaborate on which specific areas you're trying not to touch? In your previous comment, you mentioned "rewriting what already works" and "malicious packages and copyright infringement"; anything else?
- diggan 11y ago
  Things that was raised in the ipmjs repository that I don't feel the a package manager should solve > Prevent worm-like vulnerabilities when adding dependencies > npm scripts, the good, the bad, and the dangerous > Namespace all the things! > Needs for frontend and backend package managers are different > Involve the FSF > Have you thought about malicious packages? > Have you thought about copyright infringement? > trademarking 'ipmjs' so we don't get kik'd These are all issues I want to avoid. Also, I don't want to write yet another package manager, I'm trying to extend NPM and still allow the centralized way that we currently use today, but allow a optional offline-first approach. Feel free to continue reading more about what I said in the ipmjs repository here: https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13 https://github.com/ipmjs/ipmjs/issues/13